Helping in making a video game

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

Ok, my basic calculation shows that the normals win in any practical way possible. I need to change this for sure.
So, the original is very bad. Even if I take 25% of the linear portion and 75% of the alternative calculation.

I also took another look at the 3d grapsh of the linear to factored. And if I put this in 25% to 75%. I highlight the results. Then I add up the 2 3d graphs together. I get big area's of "yellow" despite highlighting results. This is a good sign.

Still need to see if the balance improves with number 2. of the previous post.

I can simply copy/paste the 2 graphs. And then change the calculation of the body and weapon part.

So, what did I calculate? And what do I need to calculate?

X
is a portion, the total is always 100%. In my graphs, I can alted this and over 10k numbers change.

B
is the body value. In my graphs I go from 0% up to 100%. Through X and thus C, it is recalculated for the combat test.

W
is the weapon value. In my graphs I go from 100% down to 0%. Through X and thus C, it is recalculated for the combat test.

C
is the "balanced" value. It can vary between 0% to 100%. (1/C) is used to recalculate B and W for the combat tests.

Tested:
Linear to Rooted (partly board game friendly)
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W)
Linear to Factored
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W

Yet to test:
Linear to Squared
C = ( (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W) )^2
Alternative (also board game friendly)
If W>B;
C = (1+X)*B + (1-X)*W
Else;
C = (1-X)*B + (1+X)*W

An unit like the rocket soldier from C&C.

Let's give the body 50 points and the weapon 450 points.

500 Linear.
300 Rooted.
180 Factored.
100 Alternative.
400 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis.
350 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis.
320 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis and squared.
245 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis and squared.
340 Linear to Factored on a 50%-50% basis.
260 Linear to Factored on a 25%-75% basis.
300 Linear to Alternative on a 50%-50% basis.

Now, compared to a unit that has a body of 250 points and a weapon of 250 points. This design always costs 500.

Linear seems to always have the normals on its side.
Rooted seems to be on equal grounds in a 1 on 1 fight.
Factored seems to have the meat and support in an advantage, to a certain point. But the 2 on 2 matches still shift this back to the normals to a certain point.
The alternative is just plain weird.

I think I should have multiplications for sure. Since this would boost the glass cannons and paper poppers a bit more.
The alternative is now discarded again. It also had some wrong favoritism located between the normals and the 1 to 9 designs.

Well, it is all math. But I am trying to put it in layman terms here.

To calculate the costs. I used several ways.
My boardgame uses a simple addition of the body and weapon.
And this works because I have a clear rule on how to take cover in a squad using allies.

In RTS, this is different.
Here I tried the following. While having the simple addition. It will be taken on average with another calculation.
Multiplying the body with the weapon, then taking the root out of it. Means we also can get zero's. This is why I also apply averaging with the additions.

Factoring, which means the same. But I don't apply the root.
Here I actually see that other designs than normals can be on top of a battle.

Less addition, which I call the alternate. But I should call it less addition instead. Is where the lowest value of the body or weapon. Is calculated normally. And the other value is cheaper. This too, allows for other designs to be more powerfull than the normals.

Then I figured, that there is always only 1 top design.
With the Factoring, there is are 2 top designs. This is depending on if it is a 1 on 1 battle or 2 on 2 battle.
This is a good thing.

So, if I want more. I thought of using any way to calculate so far. But squaring it. And with that, I mean, calculating the costs normally. Then compare to a normal design with the stats balanced out. And subtract the difference once more. This gave negative numbers too. We can't have that. Or we need to be mild with the originals.
And another was is to multiply with the new cost, then divide by the normals cost. Which never can reach 0.

The latter too, does give interesting results. But not 2 top designs. No, this time it goes back to one top design.

I also realized that having the squaring once more. Calling it cubic. Does not bring out multiple top designs. But instead, makes the difference in balance sharper. In other words, the game becomes very imbalanced that way.

***

The plan(s)
I have 2.

One
I still look for a 3 step calculation.
1. I calculate costs in a primairy way.
2. ?
3. I square or subtract from the costs.

Point 2 and 3 can switch places.

? can be something relating not only the cost value. But also one or both of the stats again. Because that way, I could make different calculations.

Two
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.
And try to keep it as balanced as possible in the 2v2 battle's. The difference in stats are going to be recalculated. And should provide me with a nice calculation for how to calculate the costs.

Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.

Then, the calculation will be a bit different in such a way. That I can created several hot spots. Such that a RPS is created in combining your forces. That is my goal.

***

I seriously am going for plan 2 right now. Because it would also show if plan 1 has any possible results.

I have found a perfect formula to calculate the perfect balance for 2 on 2 battle's of the meat/support being an exact mirror. Versus any other meat/support mirror.

I already have a perfect balance of 1 on 1 battle's. They differ here and there.

Main knowledge will be that if I design them to be good for 2 on 2. Then the 1 on 1 will work in their favour. I could pick a cost for the units right in between the 2. In that regard. The support unit always needs to be protected. Or else the team looses. While in a 1 on 1 battle, the support unit simply wins from a normal as well.

Still, this would mean that they are much cheaper than the normal sum of the body and weapon.
And they don't differ much of each other. Just a small margin. This includes the glass cannons too.
I need to discuss the 1% and 2% health units.
In regards to the 1 on 1 and the 2 on 2.

Still a lot of work. And I got mixed feeling for the fact that it doesn't matter much. But I can continue to search.